For a reason, too. Most memorable example was the fire in one of Quincy's Faxon Park apartment buildings set off by a patio grill (illegal by Quincy ordinances at the time) in 2011. An entire 24-unit building was demolished as a result, and a lot of people lost everything.

All these Yuppy bastards and wanna be Yuppy bastards who are paying $800k for a one bedroom on the seaport are actually hurting and destroying lives of longtime residents who were paying moderate rental prices for the longest time in nearby neighborhoods of Southie Dorchester and Eastie. These same neighborhoods now have escalating rental prices all because of the single 30 something trust fund adult children from Lexington and Weston are pouring into these neighborhoods by the droves because it's cool to live in a gritty neighborhoods .

It's not just the Yuppies buying , it's also the international Eurotrash , the types who are driving exotic cars around Boston and brag that they attend Harvard University but they are really attended classes at Harvard extension.
At night these Eurotrash hang out at Eurotrash night clubs and popular Eurotrash resturaunt hangouts primarily around the financial district.

Really, though - the middle of the Channel shouldn't be a South Street address.

It should be Necco Court.

Come to think of it, though, the way these things seem to work... They'd want maximum marketability, potential, and pretentiousness.

It should be a Dorchester Avenue address.

One Dorchester Avenue - just like One Greenway became an address.

"OneDOT: Just a DOT on the map!"

They'd make a deal with the Post Office to have their parking garage in part of the Post Office's South Station building. They'd have a covered drawbridge between shore and the tower. And - there'd be an end to all this foolish talk about reopening Dot Av as a through road to general traffic

Are you in fact a multimillionare as has been alleged by some Uhub commenters? A million dollar campaign fund for a city councillor is beyond huge. Is it self funded? Or is this all a joke because after all you are a clown?

I know what market forces are, friend. I also know that examples of real world instances that closely mimic basic models are rare - whether the field we're talking about is economics, politics, any of the sciences, etc, ad nauseum.

Clearly there's more going on in modern urban real estate markets (including Boston) than simple supply and demand curves can explain. So...I'm saying that real world data does not support the supposition you made. Counter-examples respectfully requested.

The first statement (i.e. "more units= cheaper units than otherwise") implies that prices will be lower in a given market or market segment if more supply exists -- i.e. rents/purchase prices will be lower to meet demand than if nothing had been built. Presumably a similar amount of demand exists in both cases so prices go even higher with the same number of prospective tenants/buyers competing for an even more limited supply if no new units are built.

Price increases can occur in a housing market where new units are being added in the event that supply isn't rising quickly enough to meet the demand that exists in the market. It's not all that different from the case of airline tickets for the NFL championship game -- the airlines add a bunch of capacity to the host city but the prices are still sky-high because it's not enough to meet the demand.

When someone builds a building with million dollar units it doesn't mean prices in said triple deckers stay the same or drop. Instead the market sees those new million dollar units and says "property values going up, must raise our triple decker price accordingly as well". That and the city population is not stagnant so even with those new million dollar units - there are still plenty of people willing to be ripped off and pay $750,000 for a floor in a triple decker. A floor that 15 years ago might have fetched only $250,000 - and sorry but salaries have hardly tripled in the same period.

That simply isn't true in an area with a housing shortage. People aren't choosing to leave, they're being priced out. The city sees no repercussions from this because there are always willing to fill the empty housing stock - there can never be a housing glut or a vacancy problem in Boston, which is the only pressure which decreases prices.

Nobody getting $2,000 a month assesses the market and lowers the rent - because almost no landlords (and zero tenants) are actually able to assess the market on a meaningful level. If you leave your $2,000 a month apartment the landlord will fill it instantly, not take it as a sign that rent prices are too high and examine the effects their personal actions are having on the greater Boston housing community. Come on now.

Markets only work in theory when they're informed. Market approaches only work when there is room for negotiation, and not a vast power divide in the negotiation. Neither of those is the case with the rental market.

Affordable housing has been disappearing there in part because local government chose to distort the market through rent control -- but there's an escape hatch by way of the Ellis Act. Even though Ellis Act evictions are complicated and costly, there's so much money to be made from condo conversions that the landlord makes bank from exiting the rental market.

The problem in Boulder is that there's a ton of demand (especially with a growing student population) but the local government has chosen to restrict building heights as well as the addition of rental housing in certain neighborhoods. So when the government makes it more difficult to add supply, demand is going to drive prices up.

As for Boston... It's super-expensive to build here (especially if the developer "complies with local standards" in hiring; i.e. Union-only construction crew), the land is expensive, and permitting is difficult. It's tough to make the numbers work unless you go for the top of the market. And new developments -- even those aimed at the middle of the market -- all tout luxury, because marketing is aspirational. Few people aspire to live in "affordable" housing; most want to live in "luxury" even if that's a thin veneer over a pile of steaming poo.

You know what is so funny, the amount of residential units that have been destroyed for new development downtown. Why is it funny? Because essentially no units have been taken away. The joke is on him. 99% (not sourced) of the new residential developments downtown, have not destroyed any other residential units. It actually may be all of the new residential developments, not counting flop houses in the South End that have been converted back to be 1 and 2 family buildings, have seen any units removed from the market.

Look at all the new residential construction downtown; Avenir, The Beverley, the new building next to the Garden, Lovejoy Wharf, One Franklin, One Dalton, Avalon Exeter, AVA next to Jacob Wirth's, al of the Chinatown construction, the conversion of the Suffolk U buildings. All of the Seaport Residential construction, all the residential construction around Broadway (except Lechmore Point (the Quiet Man) which had two or three apartments), has been redevelopment of vacant or unused industrial sites. There may have been some places torn down in East Boston but the net amount of new construction is fantastic for the city.

It is realtors jobs to make new construction look nice and shiny so you will buy it. I remember the Rochambeau School on Gibson Street being marketed as luxury condominiums in the 80's. It was about as luxury as the carpet from Sears in my first apartment, but people bought them anyway.

If any truism is out there it is that some of the biggest victim players in the Boston real estate scene are "the artists". Who, owing to their screaming and yelling got to keep some of the units at the Channel Center and along Summer Street reserved for them so they could drink coffee and complain about the "rich". While the rest of us after to do 2 hours a day on the T they "suffer" for us and point out our fallacies. Thanks guys, get a job.

It isn't satirizing all development, but those luxury developments characterized by hyperbolic marketing strategies and the whitewashing of any kind of contextual urban character, which is then followed by the real estate industry coining new names for neighborhoods, amenities, etc.

Similar to how not long after the Millenium Tower opened, there were articles in Curbed Boston and other real estate/news sites declaring that Downtown Crossing is now an active, clean, and happy neighborhood with no problems, crime, or homeless people.

Further, it is commenting on the fact that many of these buyers want to live in the city, but without any of the problems associated with living in an actual city, i.e racial and economic diversity, noise, and traffic. They essentially want gated communities in the city.

And sure you can criticize artists in Fort Point and say they deserve to be priced out like any other affected by gentrification, but yet the developers who market Seaport development are more than happy to glorify the neighborhood as a district full of arts and culture, or appropriate some contextual "Boston" idea to help market their building to rich suburbanites or foreign investors. It is the appropriation of the character and culture of the segments of the population that are being forced out in lieu of some homogenized population of wealthy non-minorities.

Honestly, the only way I can see someone being quite as offended as you are is the realization that you are of the population being satirized. Oh and I think the artist has a job, it's called being an artist. If you can't see any value in that or the ideas that artists put forth, maybe you should just go live in an office park somewhere, completely devoid of character or people with opinions or lifestyles different from yours.

You're calling racial diversity one of the "problems associated with living in an actual city?" Isn't that supposed to be one of the key attractions of city life?

And some choose to live in a city (myself included) precisely because of traffic; spending an hour a day in traffic is soul-sucking, so living closer to work is a dramatic improvement in quality of life for me.

About noise: I think most city dwellers, wealthy, poor, and in-between accept that there will be some noise, but I doubt any are happy about unreasonable amounts of noise, nor should they be.

I get the satire being put forth by the artist, and there have been some pretty laughable advertisements out there (like the one exhorting folks to "Get [their] Eastie on" with the stereotypical millennial tech bro pictured on a water taxi). But by the same token, virtually all of the development in downtown has been at the "luxury" end of the market because it's pretty much impossible to build a project with affordable or middle income housing only due to costs. The Beverly is all-affordable/workforce housing but it has the benefit of a slew of tax credits and a nominal cost of land.

Even when non-profit CDCs are building out in Dorchester or Mattapan with free or low-cost land their projects are coming in at $300-400K/unit and that's not affordable either.